slug.com slug.com

3 5

Couldn't have happened to a better person. Karma can be a bitch at times...

Stacey Abrams' charity has misplaced half a million dollars, qualifying for a federal investigation-
[redstate.com]federal-investigation-n705064

SpikeTalon 10 Feb 18
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

With the loss of the last ethical commissioner on the FTC, I doubt the investigation will be anything more than a headache.

0

Half a million here, half a million there. Pretty soon you're talking real money.

1

Federal investigation is done by the FBI, right. If so need I say more?

Such an investigation would still cause her misery, which is the part I found humorous. Not the fact it probably won't lead to a conviction, although we don't know that for certain either way how that will end.

@SpikeTalon What kind of misery? She is part of the establishment. Remember what FBI did with Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Cuomo and the list goes on? Ted Wheeler? Jay Inslee? Biden's, Clintones, Obamas, Bushe's. FBI is the KGB of America. The only thing they might do is produce some scape gout and promote Stacey Abrams to some kushy, no show, big payday job. That is how the system works in banana republic. No misery for her. She is protected and will be rewarded for her loyalty to the regime. That is how it works. You fail upwards.

@Krunoslav

Well yes but that is just the nature of societies. If you are looking for perfection you will kill pragmatism. It isn't a question of if power corrupts but how corrupt it is allowed to be.

@wolfhnd I don't think that is the nature of societies, but nature of a particular kind.

Perfection is one thing, but what we are dealing with here is abusive relationship and stockroom syndrome type society. A cartel that abuses people for two years, say forget all that Putin bad and sheep follow. There are evolutionary reasons why this is possible, but there are also ideological reasons why this is possible as well. And not every society was like this.

I think of power as amoral and rather than power being the corrupter, I think power attracts the corrupted and they are already willing to do whatever it takes to get to that power , hence they are better at obtaining it than people of higher moral character.

Machiavelli observed this.

Chapter 18, Of The Need For Princes To Keep Their Word.

"Everybody knows how commendable it is for a ruler to keep his word and live by integrity rather than by cunning, and yet experience shows us that rulers with little regard for their word have achieved great things, being expert at beguiling men's minds." ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

"A prince must be a fox to spot the snares and a lion to overwhelm the wolves. Those who rely merely upon the lion's strength do not understand this. Therefore, a prudent ruler cannot keep his word, nor should he, when it would be to his disadvantage to do so. If all men were good, this rule would not stand. But as men are wicked and not prepared to keep their word to you, you have no need to keep your word to them." ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

"Those best able to imitate the fox have succeeded best. But foxiness should be well concealed - one must be a great feigner and dissembler.
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

"A deceiver will always find someone willing to be deceived."

"If a ruler who wants always to act honourably is surrounded by many unscrupulous men, his downfall is inevitable. Therefore, it is necessary for a ruler who wishes to maintain his position to learn how to be able not to be good." ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

...........................

"I find it more fitting to seek the truth of the matter, rather than imaginary conceptions, because how one lives and how one ought to live are so far apart that a ruler who persists in doing what ought to be done will undermine his power.

It is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved. It is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."

― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

...off course I don't fully agree with Machiavelli, not because I think he was wrong, but because I think he was cynical. I am skeptic. Its just better for my health.

The current banana republic system of America is not going to get any better until it completely fails and something else replaces is. So I'm certain it will fail and I'm optimistic that something better can replace it.

But I don't expect any justice in this current state.

@Krunoslav

One of the Christian concepts come to play here "original sin". Unless you accept that all men are born sinful your will not be able to develop a concept for social organization that is pragmatic.

@wolfhnd "One of the Christian concepts come to play here "original sin". Unless you accept that all men are born sinful your will not be able to develop a concept for social organization that is pragmatic. "

I disagree with that. Actually the concept of Original Sin is not even commonly preached among Christians.

What is the difference in views between Orthodoxy and the western churches?

Original sin (προπατορική αμαρτία in Greek means ancestral sin) is a term used in western churches that is different from what the Church originally taught as ancestral sin. It is a doctrine that comes from the time of Saint Augustine. He was defending the Church against the teaching of Pelagius. Augustine taught that all humanity sinned with Adam. That is, his sin became our personal sin. The consequence is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance.

It is pointed out that Augustine used a poor translation of Romans 5:12. ἐφ᾿ ᾧ (ef Jw) which means "because of" was translated as "in whom." Sinned in Adam is quite different than sinned because of Adam. The correct interpretation teaches that Adam’s sin carried death to all creation, and that although our sin is evidence to this death, it is not Adam’s specific transgression that we have inherited.

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

In the Orthodox view, guilt can only result from an act which one has committed. We can’t sin for another person. We believe that we need a savior to overcome death and our separation from God, to be forgiven our own transgressions, but not to be forgiven for Adam’s transgression. For Adam, sin came first then death. We inherit death from Adam and our sin follows.

Death is a significant burden for us to carry. Our lives are dominated by the fear of death and our struggle to survive. In this struggle we tend to become self-centered. As a result we can be separated from God. Our salvation involves a transformation from this fearful autonomous state. For eternal life we must be in communion with God and one another.

Augustine in his debate with Pelagius developed the position that only grace is able to save. The Church had always taught that it was both a matter of grace and personal effort or synergia as it was termed. This position of the early Church was abandoned in the west. A concept of legalistic justice was then applied to western theology which led to further differences between east and west and the notion of a wrathful God in the west rather than the loving God of Orthodoxy.

[stgeorgegreenville.org]

@wolfhnd

"The idea that Adam and Eve have left us totally corrupted by sin. That was the conclusion of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, the father of Western theology.

As a young man, Augustine lived the life of a playboy. He was also a scholar with a brilliant career ahead of him. But it all turned sour.

Then, in a garden in Milan, came a moment when he began to see a purpose in his life.

He heard a child chanting "tolle lege" - "take up and read".

Augustine opened Paul's Epistle To The Romans at random. Paul confronted him with his own sin and told him that the only way to salvation was through purity of life.

Augustine became obsessed with the source of sin in Adam and Eve's disobedience to God, and his answer bequeathed the Western Latin Church an idea which not every Christian has found in the Bible - original sin.

Augustine came to believe that all humans inherit sin from the sin of Adam and Eve, and that sexual desire is an appetite of the baser physical body rather than the soul, and that the sexual act is the way that sin is transmitted from one generation to the next.

It means that you and I are so corrupted by sin there's nothing we can do to save ourselves from Hell.

Only God can do that, by his grace. And there is no reason why he shouldn't make random decisions as to who to send to Heaven and who to leave in Hell.

We have no say in the matter, because we're nothing but corruption.

That idea of predestination still hangs around Western Christianity, Catholic and Protestant.

As does Augustine's dark view of sex. And maybe the modern West is so obsessed with good sex as the symbol of a fulfilled life precisely because the Western Latin Church has been so long obsessed with bad sex as the root of human sin."

BBC A History of Christianity 2of6 Catholicism The Unpredictable Rise of Rome

@Krunoslav

Pragmatism teaches us that while we may not be able to save ourselves from purgatory, with a little luck we can save ourselves from hell.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

Hubris is a deadly sin.

Freewill doesn't mean you are free it means that you can be held responsible. Just as you are not responsible for original sin you are still held responsible for it's influence over you. Grace is knowing what those influences are. God in a way is that little space in which all things are not predetermined. Without randomness there would be no big bang and whatever is beyond the universe would have carried on as it always had. Freewill is abstract but it is also an aberration in nature. Randomness and the ability to make choices is fundamental to life. It defines intelligence. The key is to accept our nature but have the courage and wisdom to not be a slave to it.

You can talk about predestination and Christian theology but I know of no other religion so devoted to the concept of freewill. To say we are nothing but corruption is to ignore the possibility of redemption. Not because Christ is the lord but because he is the way the light and the truth. Of course the BBC is going to corrupt the philosophy because they don't believe in freewill. They have a very poor understanding of abstract reality. It's not something that you can toy with and not expect unforeseen consequences. They see humans as without original sin and infinitely malleable. For example a thousand genders or the perfect socialist state of wet robots.

@wolfhnd I think I would agree with most what you said, but I probably would use less theological terms to describe some of it. Since I am not a believer under Christian banner.

"Pragmatism teaches us that while we may not be able to save ourselves from purgatory, with a little luck we can save ourselves from hell. "

I would agree with this to the extent we are talking about earthly matters. In theology I would also agree with this to the extent I accept the theology. Otherwise, I would go about examining the origin of the theological terms such as hell, purgatory etc.

@Krunoslav

Religion bridges physical and abstract reality. To do this it doesn't have to be logical.

We often make the mistake that nature is "logical" but nature has no purpose or reasons. Purpose and reasons like logic are human creations, they are real but not in a physical sense. Religion provides reasons for things that have no reasons. That doesn't mean that they are illogical anymore than any other aspect of abstract reality. Abstract reality or culture has evolved and in that sense it mimics physical reality. It has responded to the environment in which it developed. One of the primary components of that environment is human nature or instincts. But nature and instinct have no logic. Humans so use to abstract reality demand that nature be logical. Religion has evolved to provide that logic. Some times with beneficial effect and sometimes with deleterious effect. That is the off time missed component of physical reality in that it depends on randomness fundamentally.

To be fair I'm a determinist for pragmatic reasons. I expect that causes and effect will be uniform across time and space but I don't ignore the role of imagination in human affairs nor the importance of randomness and humility.

I hold to traditional values not because they are logical but because they evolved in response to that part of the environment that doesn't change, human nature or instincts. I believe in traditional values expressed as virtue.

Chastity or Purity and abstinence as opposed to lust or Luxuria. Temperance or Humanity, equanimity as opposed to Gluttony or Gula. Charity or Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice as opposed to Greed or Avaritia. Diligence or Persistence, effortfulness, ethics as opposed to Sloth or Acedia. Patience or Forgiveness, mercy as opposed to Wrath or Ira. Kindness or Satisfaction, compassion as opposed to Envy or Invidia. Humility or Bravery, modesty, reverence as opposed to Pride.

A determinist cannot believe in virtue or morality because nature is amoral. It is the major problem with modern philosophy and to some extent Nietzsche and other modern European philosophers, Asian philosophies in a slightly different way. If it continues hubris will kill us all.

@wolfhnd "Religion bridges physical and abstract reality. To do this it doesn't have to be logical. "

I'm not sure that is the core function or characteristic of a religion. Because what you wrote there can be applied to ones imagination, day dreaming, or vision on individual level, with no other characteristic of organized religion. In fact I don't see how could people function as human beings if they did not have imagination. Its used all the time in our daily lives. And often its abstract and yet helps us navigate physical reality.

I think about religion as as more of something like this.

Religion comes from the Latin religare ("to bind together" ), and that provides a clue to its function. Religion's primary function is to bind society together through shared beliefs and values, rules and rituals, ceremonies, and worship practices, and to provide stability. It often features a hierarchical structure.

In the more primitive versions, it can be seen in the form of folk religion and comprises various forms and expressions of religion that are distinct from the official doctrines and practices of organized religion. Typically, it involves ancestor worship, belief in spirits, curses, and good and bad luck, and often involves rituals that can be private or public.

By contrast, the term organized religion, also known as institutional religion, is a more developed and sophisticated form of religion in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established. Organized religion is typically characterized by an official doctrine (dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices. Temples and other religious monuments are built. Places of worship are built. It often features theologians, dealing with metaphysical questions. Questions regarding what the world is made of, what happens after we die, who created the universe, origin myths, etc.

There are also forms of religion that feature exclusive esoteric religious knowledge, confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle. These are sometimes called cults. Today, the word cult has negative connotations, but in ancient Rome, there were many cults that were seen as normal and were permitted. Cult was about cultivating the favors of a particular god or gods. Once Christianity took over as dominant religion, cultivating favors of anything other than one God, was negative and labeled heracy.

"We often make the mistake that nature is "logical" but nature has no purpose or reasons. "

I agree that term logical implies conscious mind on the part of collection of psychical forces we call nature. I would not say that nature has no purpose, to the extent that we think of nature as plants and animals and not just rocks and rivers. All living beings have a purpose, which is to survive long enough to pass on the genetic material and ensure survival of their offspring. Rocks and rivers, off course do not have a consciousness hence they operate by the laws of forces of physical universe. That is their purpose, that we as external conscious observers can notice.

"To be fair I'm a determinist for pragmatic reasons. I expect that causes and effect will be uniform across time and space but I don't ignore the role of imagination in human affairs nor the importance of randomness and humility. "

Kudos.

"A determinist cannot believe in virtue or morality because nature is amoral. It is the major problem with modern philosophy and to some extent Nietzsche and other modern European philosophers, Asian philosophies in a slightly different way. If it continues hubris will kill us all. "

I would take a different view on this. If we have evolved this stupid society that will kill us all than that will be end of us. Or we will be faced with extension and forced to evolve better ideas just as we have in the past. I don't think current state of affers determains our final destiy, I think its part of evolution of ideas in society and part of ebb and flow of human spicies.

@Krunoslav

Religion would not be so universal if it's function was simply to bind people together. But in any case like all things evolved it doesn't have a function in the sense of purpose. Individuals may take advantage of the "instinct" for religion to form hierarchies that enforce uniformity and they give it that function.

Primitive societies have almost universally naturalist, pantheistic, and individualistic religions. They serve hunter and gathers well by imposing a morality based on the need to conserve in some sense the natural world. Animals and even the inert have spirits. The natural world deserves respect because it is dangerous and in some ways unstable but it is also the sole provider. It's produce varies for reasons primitive people do have the science to understand. Civilized societies are based on productivity not found in nature. They use science, especially the science of agriculture for productivity. Religion serves them well by creating the harsh but stable environment that civilization requires. There religions reject naturalism because nature is the enemy not the provider. What is paramount in civilization is cooperation.

The idea that nature doesn't have purpose is hard to understand because in the abstract reality that humans create purpose is everything. We see the world in terms of design. In part that is a consequence of physical evolution. Prey sees agency behind every blade of grass because predators may be lurking everywhere. So to some extent it is true that all living things have a sense of purpose but as I pointed out that has to do with the connection between randomness and intelligence. Properties of life that are not well understood.

The point is that even religion evolved without purpose. It was forged in an environment that defined it's adaptation. To say it was designed to oppress people is a gross oversimplification. It's like saying that the queen was designed to oppress the worker ants. But the queen is a much a slave to the workers as the workers are to the queen. Humans of course did not evolve to be eusocial animals or slaves to instincts. But humans do share swarm intelligence with social insects. No one has independently ever invented anything. The complex, abstract tools that define human evolution evolved over time and were transmitted from generation to generation. Religion is one of those thinking tools. It need not be real in the natural philosophy sense to have abstract reality. You could argue we now have better thinking tools but I would argue caution because hubris is a dangerous thing. Covid was a reminder that with natural philosophy it is dangerous to have too much hubris. Religion reminds us that playing God is dangerous. It evolved that way because of previous periods in the development of civilization. The belief that a culture was the end of history proved dangerous. That is what I mean by religion bridging the gap between physical reality and abstract reality. The power of the thinking tools of abstract reality are both wondrous and dangerous. Morality and virtue the mediator.

If you do away with the abstract then you have done away with purpose and are subject to the chaos of nature. We see that in the pseudo sophistication of today's philosophies. Sex is a whim and so is everything else. Words no longer have definitions because they have no purpose other than power. Meaning comes from the hopeless pursuit of pleasure. How people feel or perceive their instincts are more important than long established methods of survival. A fast lifestyle suited for the unstable but easy natural world replaces the slow lifestyle civilization requires. A fast lifestyle increases fitness in nature because reproduction is more important than nurturing. Natural philosophy has come to define everything but it is unsophisticated when it comes to abstract reality. It hasn't had time to evolve the morality of the religions it replaced. It has no basis for morality because nature is amoral. That more or less defines the modern world especially attempts at communism and socialism.

@wolfhnd There was an interesting lecture about this by Pascal Boyer

The Diversity of Religious Systems across History An evolutionary cognitive approach

Pascal Robert Boyer is a French-American cognitive anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist, mostly known for his work in the cognitive science of religion. He taught at the University of Cambridge for eight years, before taking up the position of Henry Luce Professor of Individual and Collective Memory at Washington University in St. Louis, where he teaches classes on evolutionary psychology and anthropology.[1] He was a Guggenheim Fellow and a visiting professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the University of Lyon, France.[2] He studied philosophy and anthropology at University of Paris and Cambridge, with Jack Goody, working on memory constraints on the transmission of oral literature.[3] Boyer is a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist, studies how human biases and cognitive faculties have resulted in or encouraged cultural phenomena.[4] He advocates the idea that human evolution resulted in specialized capacities that guide our social relations, culture, and predilections toward religious beliefs. Boyer and others propose that these cognitive mechanisms make the acquisition of “religious” themes, like concepts of spirits, ghosts, ancestors or gods, highly transmissible within a community.[4]

Boyer has conducted long-term ethnographic fieldwork in Cameroon, where he studied the transmission of Fang oral epics and its traditional religion. Most of his later work consists of an experimental study of cognitive capacities underlying cultural transmission. He also conducted studies on supernatural concepts and their retention in memory and a general description of cognitive processes involved in the transmission of religious concepts.[3] More recently, he has written on the concept of Folk economics, which proposes that evolved cognitive biases play an important role in how laypeople view the economy.

[en.wikipedia.org]

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:400432
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.